Re: [PATCH v2] KVM: s390: Introduce storage key removal facility

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On 08.09.20 10:36, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 09:52:48 +0200
> Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> On 9/7/20 6:30 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>> On Mon,  7 Sep 2020 10:33:52 -0400
>>> Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>   
>>>> The storage key removal facility makes skey related instructions
>>>> result in special operation program exceptions. It is based on the
>>>> Keyless Subset Facility.
>>>>
>>>> The usual suspects are iske, sske, rrbe and their respective
>>>> variants. lpsw(e), pfmf and tprot can also specify a key and essa with
>>>> an ORC of 4 will consult the change bit, hence they all result in
>>>> exceptions.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately storage keys were so essential to the architecture, that
>>>> there is no facility bit that we could deactivate. That's why the
>>>> removal facility (bit 169) was introduced which makes it necessary,
>>>> that, if active, the skey related facilities 10, 14, 66, 145 and 149
>>>> are zero. Managing this requirement and migratability has to be done
>>>> in userspace, as KVM does not check the facilities it receives to be
>>>> able to easily implement userspace emulation.
>>>>
>>>> Removing storage key support allows us to circumvent complicated
>>>> emulation code and makes huge page support tremendously easier.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> v2:
>>>> 	* Removed the likely
>>>> 	* Updated and re-shuffeled the comments which had the wrong information
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>  arch/s390/kvm/intercept.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>>>  arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c  |  5 +++++
>>>>  arch/s390/kvm/priv.c      | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++---
>>>>  3 files changed, 67 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/intercept.c b/arch/s390/kvm/intercept.c
>>>> index e7a7c499a73f..983647ea2abe 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/intercept.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/intercept.c
>>>> @@ -33,6 +33,7 @@ u8 kvm_s390_get_ilen(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>>  	case ICPT_OPEREXC:
>>>>  	case ICPT_PARTEXEC:
>>>>  	case ICPT_IOINST:
>>>> +	case ICPT_KSS:
>>>>  		/* instruction only stored for these icptcodes */
>>>>  		ilen = insn_length(vcpu->arch.sie_block->ipa >> 8);
>>>>  		/* Use the length of the EXECUTE instruction if necessary */
>>>> @@ -565,7 +566,44 @@ int kvm_handle_sie_intercept(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>>  		rc = handle_partial_execution(vcpu);
>>>>  		break;
>>>>  	case ICPT_KSS:
>>>> -		rc = kvm_s390_skey_check_enable(vcpu);
>>>> +		if (!test_kvm_facility(vcpu->kvm, 169)) {
>>>> +			rc = kvm_s390_skey_check_enable(vcpu);
>>>> +		} else {  
>>>
>>> <bikeshed>Introduce a helper function? This is getting a bit hard to
>>> read.</bikeshed>
>>>   
>>>> +			/*
>>>> +			 * Storage key removal facility emulation.
>>>> +			 *
>>>> +			 * KSS is the same priority as an instruction
>>>> +			 * interception. Hence we need handling here
>>>> +			 * and in the instruction emulation code.
>>>> +			 *
>>>> +			 * KSS is nullifying (no psw forward), SKRF
>>>> +			 * issues suppressing SPECIAL OPS, so we need
>>>> +			 * to forward by hand.
>>>> +			 */
>>>> +			switch (vcpu->arch.sie_block->ipa) {
>>>> +			case 0xb2b2:
>>>> +				kvm_s390_forward_psw(vcpu, kvm_s390_get_ilen(vcpu));
>>>> +				rc = kvm_s390_handle_b2(vcpu);
>>>> +				break;
>>>> +			case 0x8200:  
>>>
>>> Can we have speaking names? I can only guess that this is an lpsw...  
>>
>> You can only guess from the kvm_s390_handle_lpsw() call below? ;-)
>>
>> I'd be happy to put this into an own function and add some comments to
>> the cases where we lack them. However, I don't really want to define
>> constants for speaking names.
> 
> Well, I can guess the lpsw here :) but not the b2b2 above. Maybe add a
> comment like /* handle lpsw/lpswe */?

I think we can remove these 2 case statements and rely on the default case anyway.
> 
>>
>>>   
>>>> +				kvm_s390_forward_psw(vcpu, kvm_s390_get_ilen(vcpu));
>>>> +				rc = kvm_s390_handle_lpsw(vcpu);
>>>> +				break;
>>>> +			case 0:
>>>> +				/*
>>>> +				 * Interception caused by a key in a
>>>> +				 * exception new PSW mask. The guest
>>>> +				 * PSW has already been updated to the
>>>> +				 * non-valid PSW so we only need to
>>>> +				 * inject a PGM.
>>>> +				 */
>>>> +				rc = kvm_s390_inject_program_int(vcpu, PGM_SPECIFICATION);
>>>> +				break;
>>>> +			default:
>>>> +				kvm_s390_forward_psw(vcpu, kvm_s390_get_ilen(vcpu));
>>>> +				rc = kvm_s390_inject_program_int(vcpu, PGM_SPECIAL_OPERATION);
>>>> +			}
>>>> +		}
>>>>  		break;
>>>>  	case ICPT_MCHKREQ:
>>>>  	case ICPT_INT_ENABLE:  
>>>   
>>
>>
> 



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Development]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Info]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Linux Media]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux